10. 14/0945/FUL - Conversion of the original Long Island Exchange building to 8 apartments including alterations to the roof. Demolition of the existing hotel extension and the construction of 25 apartments and 4 houses with associated access, car parking spaces, cycle storage, amenity space and landscaping works, at LONG ISLAND EXCHANGE, VICTORIA CLOSE, RICKMANSWORTH, HERTFORDSHIRE, WD3 4EQ, for Keay Homes (Long Island Exchange) Ltd

(DCES)

Parish: Non-parished / Ward: Rickmansworth Town
Expiry Statutory Period: 19 August 2014 / Officer: Claire Westwood
Recommendation: That Planning Permission is granted subject to conditions and the completion of a Section106 Agreement.
Reason for consideration by the Committee: Called in by 3 Members of Committee.

1. Relevant Planning History

1.1 12/1443/PREAPP - Demolition and clearance of the site and development of residential scheme comprising of 79 private flats and apartments and 44affordable flats and apartments with associated parking (173 spaces), servicing and amenity space. Response sent 31 August 2012.

1.2 12/1794/FUL - Demolition of existing hotel and restaurant and construction of 92residential units comprising 87 apartments and 5 townhouses with associated accesses, parking spaces and communal amenity space. Refused 21 December 2012 for the following reasons:

R1 The proposed development, by reason of its excessive height, width, scale, building to plot ratio, poor layout and siting, would be cramped and excessively dominant in the immediate streetscene and surrounding locality and would represent overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of the visual amenities and character of the area and the residential amenities of future occupiers. This is contrary to Policies CP1, CP3 and CP12 of the Core Strategy, Saved Policy GEN3 and Appendix 2 of the Local Plan 1996-2011 and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version).

R2 The proposed development, by reason of its scale, height, block-like appearance and design, would adversely affect views into and out of the adjacent Conservation Areas and the important spaces within them. In particular, the proposal would adversely affect the setting of the Upper Nightingale Road Conservation Area, failing to comply with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy, Saved Policy C2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 and Policy DM3 of the Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version).

R3 The proposed development, by reason of its excessive scale, height and design, would be an overbearing and overdominant form of development that would result in loss of light and privacy to existing neighbouring properties, to the detriment of the residential amenities of their occupiers. This is contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy, Saved Policy GEN3 and Appendix 2 of the Local Plan 1996-2011 and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version).

R4 The proposed development fails to provide adequate parking and turning space for service, delivery and emergency vehicles. The application therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policies CP1 and CP10 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Saved Policy T7 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011.

R5 The proposed development fails to meet the requirements of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and SPD: Affordable Housing (approved June 2011) in that the scheme is for market dwellings and no contribution has been made towards the provision of affordable housing.

R6 The proposed development would result in a significant increase in demand for education, libraries, childcare facilities, youth facilities, open space/children’s play space and sustainable transport provision in the area. There is currently a shortage of these facilities in the area. The proposed development would exacerbate this situation and in the absence of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 fails to recognise the impact of the development upon these services. The proposal would also attract a requirement for fire hydrant provision. The application therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policies PSP1, CP1, CP8 and CP10 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Saved Policies T7 and L10 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011, Policy DM11 of the Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version) and SPD: Open Space, Amenity and Children’s Playspace (adopted December 2007).

1.3 13/0480/FUL - Demolition of existing hotel and restaurant and construction of 65 residential units with associated accesses, basement parking and communal amenity space. Refused 21 June 2013 for the following reasons:

R1 The proposed development, by reason of its excessive height, width, scale, bulk, building to plot ratio, poor layout and siting, would be cramped and excessively dominant in the immediate streetscene and surrounding locality and would represent an overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of the visual amenities and character of the area and the residential amenities of future occupiers. This is contrary to Policies CP1, CP3 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Saved Policy GEN3 and Appendix 2 of the Local Plan 1996-2011 and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version).

R2 The proposed development, by reason of its scale, bulk, height and design, would adversely affect views into and out of the adjacent Conservation Areas and the important spaces within them. In particular, the proposal would adversely affect the setting of the Upper Nightingale Road Conservation Area, failing to comply with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Saved Policy C2 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011 and Policy DM3 of the Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version).

R3 The proposed development, by reason of its siting, height and design, would result in loss of privacy to existing neighbouring properties, to the detriment of the residential amenities of their occupiers. This is contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Saved Policy GEN3 and Appendix 2 of the Local Plan 1996-2011 and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version).

R4 The proposed development fails to meet the requirements of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and SPD: Affordable Housing (approved June 2011) in that the scheme is for market dwellings and no contribution has been made towards the provision of affordable housing.

R5 The proposed development would result in a significant increase in demand for education, libraries, childcare facilities, youth facilities, open space/children’s play space and sustainable transport provision in the area. There is currently a shortage of these facilities in the area. The proposed development would exacerbate this situation and in the absence of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 fails to recognise the impact of the development upon these services. The proposal would also attract a requirement for fire hydrant provision. The application therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policies PSP1, CP1, CP8 and CP10 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Saved Policies T7 and L10 of the Three Rivers Local Plan 1996-2011, Policy DM11 of the Development Management Policies LDD (Proposed Submission Version) and SPD: Open Space, Amenity and Children’s Playspace (adopted December 2007).

1.4 An appeal against the refusal of planning permission 13/0480/FUL was dismissed on 1 April 2014. Long Island was not designated as a Locally Important Building when planning permission 13/0480/FUL was refused, however, it was added to the Council’s Local List before the appeal decision was issued. The Planning Inspector commented that;

53. There is a potential tension between the fact that the Long Island Exchange Hotel was added to the Council’s list of Locally Important Buildings in July 2013, but the Council’s Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD) which allocates specific sites to meet its development needs relies upon the appeal site for the provision of 50 dwellings. Further the SADPD was submitted for examination in October 2013. Nevertheless, the proposed loss of the Locally Important Building would be in conflict with Policy DM3 of the Development Management Policies LDD, which encourages the retention of Locally Important Buildings.

54. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at paragraph 135 states that: The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

55. In this case, given that I have already concluded that there is sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal, it follows that the appeal scheme would not justify the loss of this non-designated heritage asset.

1.5 13/2277/FUL - Demolition of existing hotel and restaurant and the construction of 31 residential units, with associated parking and communal amenity space. Refused 4 April 2014 for the following reasons:

R1 The existing Locally Important Building by reason of its historical and architectural merit makes a significant contribution to the local scene. The proposal would involve the loss of a Locally Important Building which would adversely affect the character and appearance of the local scene and be contrary to Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policy DM3 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) and the NPPF

R2 The proposed development fails to meet the requirements of Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and SPD: Affordable Housing (approved June 2011). The scheme is for market dwellings, no contribution has been made towards the provision of affordable housing and no satisfactory section 106 has been completed which contains an accepted mechanism ensuring that there is an updated appraisal of financial performance immediately before the development is substantially commenced to assess whether a commuted sum should apply to make up the under provision.

R3 The proposed development would result in a significant increase in demand for education, libraries, childcare facilities, youth facilities, open space/children's play space and sustainable transport provision in the area. There is currently a shortage of these facilities in the area. The proposed development would exacerbate this situation and in the absence of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 fails to recognise the impact of the development upon these services. The proposal would also attract a requirement for fire hydrant provision. The application therefore fails to meet the requirements of Policies PSP1, CP1, CP8 and CP10 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011), Policy DM11 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013) and SPD: Open Space, Amenity and Children's Playspace (adopted December 2007).

1.6 An appeal has been lodged against the refusal of planning application 13/2277/FUL and this is currently pending consideration.

2. Site Description

2.1 The site comprises an existing hotel with restaurant and bar and has an area of 0.51 ha. The original building sited towards the south eastern corner of the site dates from 1887 and is painted / rendered white. It is two storey with a pitched roof and a maximum height of approximately 10m. There is a substantial late 20th century three storey extension that extends rearwards into the centre of the site, consisting of brick and cladding. This extension has a pitched roof with a maximum height of approximately 11m.

2.2 On the 23 July 2013 the Long Island Exchange Hotel was added to the Council’s List of Locally Important Buildings. The Local Listing report identifies that;

·  The architectural interest of the building is considerable.

·  The historical interest of the building is substantial due to the musical history connected to it.

2.3 The site is accessed via Victoria Close to the east leading from the A404 Chorleywood Road. The site is also bounded by the A412 Rectory Road to the south; a dual carriageway set at a considerably lower level that rises from west to east. There is no existing access from Nightingale Place to the west.

2.4 Residential development exists to the north and west along Nightingale Road and Nightingale Place. These residential properties predominantly consist of two storey detached and semi detached dwellings, although some have accommodation in the roofspace and Priory Lodge at the end of Nightingale Place is a three storey flatted development.

2.5 To the north east is a garage with a service area and car wash along Victoria Close; this removes the top corner from an otherwise roughly square site.

2.6 There are four / five storey office developments with undercroft parking on the opposite side of Rectory Road, fronting the roundabout.

2.7 The site lies in close proximity to Rickmansworth railway station with the Metropolitan railway line running approximately 15m beyond the south west corner of the site. The area is also well served by bus services to the south / south west, as well as the M25 to the west. Rickmansworth Town Centre is within walking distance via a subway under Rectory Road.

2.8 The site lies adjacent to the Upper Nightingale Road Conservation Area to the north and Rickmansworth Conservation Area is sited approximately 100m to the south. The adjacent land to the east lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

2.9 The site predominantly consists of hardstanding but does contain some protected trees. The land levels slope up from south to north and slightly from west to east. The site is allocated as a potential housing site in the Site Allocations document (Main Modifications Consultation, January 2014).

3. Description of Proposed Development

3.1 In summary, planning permission is sought for the partial demolition of the Long Island Exchange building. It is proposed to retain parts of the façade of the original building (as detailed on plan 017), although the roof would be replaced, with gables reintroduced to the Rectory Road frontage. The existing extensions to the rear of the building would be demolished. The development would provide a mixture of flats and dwelling houses and would consist of 3 separate blocks of accommodation. The retained building would be converted into 15 units (Block A). A second flatted block containing 18 units (Block B) would be constructed to the south-west of the site with 4 houses (Block C) fronting Nightingale Place. A total of 37 units are proposed. Associated access, car parking spaces, cycle storage, amenity space and landscaping works are also proposed.